The western world hates PATRIARCHY and the church ignores it. By this are we sinning?

[stevevw]

But this is a strawman. Nobody is trying to create a situation where every job has equal numbers of men and women (or of any other sets of groups, either).

Certainly western governments are going that way and many of the institutions like universities and larger corporations are as well. If you believe in social justice then yes the aim is for equal levels of men and women participation. Social justice is just another word for equity and equity (equal outcomes) is the new buzz word being pushed.

Take the Canadian Government for example Prime Minister Trudeau installed a 50/50% level of males and females in his cabinet not because these individuals were the best candidates but to implement equality of outcome. Then there is Biden administration. Harris has said on a number of occasions that that equality of outcome should be public policy.

Trudeau gives Canada first cabinet with equal number of men and women
Trudeau gives Canada first cabinet with equal number of men and women
Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy
Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

Giving people the opportunity to strive for success in whatever field suits their particular gifts, passions, abilities, personality and so on, rather than pigeonholing them by gender, doesn't mean it'll be 50/50 in every field, nor is that even important.

Yes exactly, I agree. But it is the leftists that are complaining that women are not having equal share in industries like the STEM fields. But as I mentioned in nations like Norway that do give people the opportunity to strive for success in whatever field suits their particular gifts, passions, abilities, personality they have found that men end up in STEM fields and women end up in care fields like nursing naturally. So there for the left cannot complain about inequality for women when its not because of the patriarchy that there is not enough women in STEM.

This can be applied to the workforce in general. In other words there are other factors that cause an unequal level of women in certain industries which then contributes to the pay gap. But the leftist groups are always making out that the only reason is the patriarchy and males are at fault for oppressing women. That is only a small part of it.

But as for things like STEM fields, having personally faced things like science lecturers telling me that "women don't belong in science," we know that barriers other than a lack of personal interest are in play.

Yes I agree and we should address that. But what I keep hearing from the left and feminist is that it’s the only reason women are not equally represented in STEM and that women should have an equal representation in STEM and other fields which to me sounds a lot like a 50/50 equal share.

Equal means the same amount so when they push equity they are giving a misleading idea of what is expected. But I think for the activists this is what they are really saying. That’s OK if it ends up that there is an equal share of both genders based on the best candidates. But we cannot just make it 50/50 or whatever % of extra genders for the sake of equality.

The point is like you say it should be about the best candidates. BUt what I believe is happening is that the best candidates are often the ones that are gtting the jobs which sometimes means more men. BUt certain people still coplain that this is men oppressing women and its a patriarchy when there are other reasons. In saying this I am not denying that men dont oppress women but it can also be the other way around as well and we need to takle all this into consideration. As we are seeing in modern society that some are targeting me as being bad and the cause of all womens problems.

In addition, the barriers to women achieving in the workplace are often more around things like lack of workplace flexibility, lack of part-time opportunities, lack of recognition that parents (not just mothers, but fathers too) need to balance their work with other responsibilities. So a two-tiered system is created; one for those who can work as if they have no other life (leaving their spouses to pick up the domestic side of things), and one for those who have to put work second to other things. And guess who always seems to end up on that second tier...?

But once again this is not just because of a patriarchy but rather the western model of economics of capitalism and neoliberalism. This model promotes individualism, economic success where not only women and parents are denied and left behind but most minorities like the disable, uneducated and indigenous as well.

This comes down to what priorities we make important and in a capitalist system material wealth is most important. The government neoliberal policies make private enterprise and the free market the welfare system and that means whoever can manage to overcome the setbacks of lack of work and flexibility in work will succeed. The government can only give so much for supporting families and businesses cannot be expected to accommodate all sorts of flexible hours if they are to be successful.

That is the system the west has created and what most people demand when they want careers and money. We can't have it both ways. If we want to make families and shared care the priority then we need to fundamentally change the system into a collectivist one where families are the most important and not just blame males under a patriarchy.

 

[Eloy Craft]

@Eloy Craft , I see. Male and female He made them. It is not enough to destroy the man. He wants to destroy the woman too. Satan wants to destroy the entire image of God. @Philip_B is right, we certainly do not want to know the mind of Satan for that is to know evil.

At your intro, I thought about the movie, the Matrix, the way humans were harvested as crops to be batteries for the machines. Spooky.

That's very close. Yup. Destroy the matrimonial bond then the maternal bond and it's a done deal. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley comes very close too.
We can know the direction Satan's deception is attempting to take us. Knowing his mind in an ontological sense...yuk...not necessary anyway.

 

[Gregorikos]

Again. I think you have a scratch on your old vinyl record, lol. Nobody is disagreeing very much about patriarchy starting at Genesis 3:16.

Then as such, patriarchy should be resisted. Because we resist without exception every other thing that came as a result of the fall. It is entirely inconsistent for you to use herbicides and tractors on your crops and lawn, sit in a comfortable air conditioned office doing deskwork, give anesthetics to your wife and daughters for comfort during childbirth, resist sickness and disease, fight our own fallen sin nature, and yet cling to patriarchy as something wonderful. A curse is a curse. Christ's victory on the cross is sufficient to defeat any curse.

There is the view, and I might share that view, that the man was primary, or he had some authority that the woman did not have prior to the Fall. It was not by his might or power that this authority existed. This authority that the man had existed because of the word God gave to the man.

But the scriptures don't support that view. It is something people read into the text because they want it to be there.

God told him to not eat the fruit. God’s word that the man carried gave him an authority that the woman did not have. Apparently, God did not tell the woman and that is why the scriptures blame Adam.

That fits your theology well, but it is pure speculation to say that God didn't tell the woman about the only rule he gave. Yet we know from the Scriptures that God spoke directly to the woman before the fall. (Genesis 1:28-30)

Let's look at the quotes the Bible gives:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis 2:16-17 (KJV)

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Genesis 3:2-3 (KJV)

When God speaks to Adam, he speaks in the singular. But when Eve quotes God, he is speaking in plural. Looks to me like God explained the one and only rule to Eve as well as Adam. And why would he not?

that is why the scriptures blame Adam.

It's a hoot that you think the Scriptures blame Adam, but Eve gets all the restrictions. I don't think so bro!

I have never said this to you before but will suggest this now. “Rule of the husband” started at Genesis 3:16, not patriarchy as you say. “Rule of the father” is not written in the text! It speaks of husband rule. Then, Adam names the woman Eve. That demonstrates his authority. You might say that if the husband rules the wife then he rules the children. We infer. It does not say that. Eve bears the children. Eve names the children. It’s a power. Is it possible that “father rule” was a later development? I don’t claim to know.

There was only one man and woman on the earth at the time, so there was no father present. God said the man would rule over the woman. That's all there was. Yes, the word humans devised to describe what God said would happen in Genesis 3:16 technically means father rule, not husband rule. But the meaning is all-encompassing.

Really. You question my honesty.

Back in post # 583, you said that I said this:

Post # 590, my response was:

I asked you where I said that. Crickets. No answer. Again, where did I say that? Is that bearing false witness?

Not at all. You expressed the need in post #570 for male intervention in bad decisions women are making in response to Eloy's post # 564. Your answer to the bad decisions isn't to teach the women, it is to put them under male authority, and let the men make the decisions. That will fix it! I thought I expressed this quite well in post # 571 but I guess you missed it.

 

[Gregorikos]

I would appreciate it if the purveyors of those non-traditional views would not repeat and re-argue about it.

I would equally appreciate it if purveyors of patriarchy would not repeat and argue about it. But here we are.

So to recap, our sister Paidiske valiantly opposed the things you were saying, and you managed to limit her ability to speak, and even asked that she be removed from the thread. Not satisfied with that, you want to seal off all opposing views and just let your perspective prevail? I don't think so.

In the original Greek, the Apostle Paul uses the word “kephalē” for head every time. All you need to understand Paul’s words is Paul himself. This is in the EXACT same letter by the EXACT same person. Paul talks about feet, the head, and the body. In fact, in every instance, Paul mentions both head and body.

Using Paul himself, and only a few verses prior to Ephesians 5:23, is 4:15-16, which is very clearly a head and body metaphor, and has nothing to do with authority. I think Paul was speaking in the same sense in 5:23.

In the original Greek as well as English, head means head… not something like source.

Pshaw! Have you never heard of a fountain head? Head of a river? Have you never heard that Adam is the federal head of the human race? What does that mean?

To go outside of the inspired Bible to outside, uninspired sources and then use those outside, uninspired resources to do harm to the Bible… it smells like kill, steal, and destroy to me.

Luckily we have the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures done a century or two before Christ by 70 translators, thus it is called the Septuagint, whith means, 'the seventy.' The Septuagint is quite often the source of any Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. It was Paul's Bible, so it is a perfect source to determine how Paul would have used kephalé.

In the Old testament Hebrew language, the word for head is 'rosh'. It occurs 595 times in the Old Testament, so this is a really good test. Of the 595 times ‘rosh’ occurs in the Old Testament, most of the time it refers to the physical body part, and our English Bibles correctly use the word “head”. At other times the Hebrew word ‘rosh’ refers to a leader or authority. This occurs 180 times in all, or about 30% of the time. And again, our Bibles normally use the word “head” in those cases since our English word, like the Hebrew word, carries both meanings. It is, in fact, the perfect translation of ‘rosh’ in this case.

But that’s Hebrew and English. The question at hand is Greek, and what Paul meant by the Greek word for head, kephalé. How did our 70 ancient Greek and Hebrew scholars translate ‘rosh’ into Greek when they had the chance? Did they believe ‘kephale’ was the perfect translation of ‘rosh’ when it referred to authority? No, they did not.

When we examine the Septuagint, we find that whenever rosh referred to a literal head, such as in Genesis 3:15, “You shall bruise his head,”- they used the standard Greek word for head, kephalé. However, in the 180 times that the Old Testament uses the word “rosh” to mean leader or ruler or boss, they avoided kephalé like the plague!

The Septuagint translators weren’t ones to paraphrase. In fact, some have complained they followed the Hebrew text too literally. Yet when ‘rosh’ meant head as a leader, they almost always switched to a different word, one that did mean leader, but did not carry the meaning of ‘head’- the body part.

Moreover, the handful of times that the Septuagint translators did use kephalé to imply authority are the first times in recorded history that the word was used that way. And in almost every instance it was either a case that they were forced to use it by a tough translation choice, such as a head/ tail metaphor, or it is questionable as to whether authority was really implied at all.

Let’s think about that.

If kephalé carries the meaning “leader” in addition to the literal meaning “head”, then it is the perfect translation of ‘rosh’ in every sense it is used. And it would mean the Septuagint translators intentionally avoided using the perfect translation in favor of another word that only carried half the meaning! And not just once or twice or a dozen times, but one hundred and seventy-one times.
This is a powerful indication that these 70 ancient linguists did not feel comfortable with using kephalé to express that meaning. If kephalé could mean authority to these guys, they wouldn’t have switched to another word that didn’t also mean “head”. It makes no sense that they would have done that.

Now we cannot even agree on the meaning of patriarchy or if a transgender man should be a priest or not!

There you go again, making your insinuations that I support LGBT. As I pointed out, we agree on that issue, but you continually want to throw that out as a point against me. Whatever.

The only reason we can't agree on the meaning of patriarchy because I can't nail you down. I tried in post #665 to establish a working definition, but you seem to be allergic to anything written by a feminist.

Then I tried in #669, and made several points that you didn't answer. I ended with a question based on your dictionary:

All that is summed up quite nicely in my point #3-

3. A society that promotes male authority and female submission.

What's your problem with that?​

Crickets.

 

[Ohorseman]

Then as such, patriarchy should be resisted. Because we resist without exception every other thing that came as a result of the fall. It is entirely inconsistent for you to use herbicides and tractors on your crops and lawn, sit in a comfortable air conditioned office doing deskwork, give anesthetics to your wife and daughters for comfort during childbirth, resist sickness and disease, fight our own fallen sin nature, and yet cling to patriarchy as something wonderful. A curse is a curse. Christ's victory on the cross is sufficient to defeat any curse.



But the scriptures don't support that view. It is something people read into the text because they want it to be there.



That fits your theology well, but it is pure speculation to say that God didn't tell the woman about the only rule he gave. Yet we know from the Scriptures that God spoke directly to the woman before the fall. (Genesis 1:28-30)

Let's look at the quotes the Bible gives:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis 2:16-17 (KJV)

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Genesis 3:2-3 (KJV)

When God speaks to Adam, he speaks in the singular. But when Eve quotes God, he is speaking in plural. Looks to me like God explained the one and only rule to Eve as well as Adam. And why would he not?



It's a hoot that you think the Scriptures blame Adam, but Eve gets all the restrictions. I don't think so bro!



There was only one man and woman on the earth at the time, so there was no father present. God said the man would rule over the woman. That's all there was. Yes, the word humans devised to describe what God said would happen in Genesis 3:16 technically means father rule, not husband rule. But the meaning is all-encompassing.



Not at all. You expressed the need in post #570 for male intervention in bad decisions women are making in response to Eloy's post # 564. Your answer to the bad decisions isn't to teach the women, it is to put them under male authority, and let the men make the decisions. That will fix it! I thought I expressed this quite well in post # 571 but I guess you missed it.

I would equally appreciate it if purveyors of patriarchy would not repeat and argue about it. But here we are.

So to recap, our sister Paidiske valiantly opposed the things you were saying, and you managed to limit her ability to speak, and even asked that she be removed from the thread. Not satisfied with that, you want to seal off all opposing views and just let your perspective prevail? I don't think so.



Using Paul himself, and only a few verses prior to Ephesians 5:23, is 4:15-16, which is very clearly a head and body metaphor, and has nothing to do with authority. I think Paul was speaking in the same sense in 5:23.



Pshaw! Have you never heard of a fountain head? Head of a river? Have you never heard that Adam is the federal head of the human race? What does that mean?



Luckily we have the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures done a century or two before Christ by 70 translators, thus it is called the Septuagint, whith means, 'the seventy.' The Septuagint is quite often the source of any Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. It was Paul's Bible, so it is a perfect source to determine how Paul would have used kephalé.

In the Old testament Hebrew language, the word for head is 'rosh'. It occurs 595 times in the Old Testament, so this is a really good test. Of the 595 times ‘rosh’ occurs in the Old Testament, most of the time it refers to the physical body part, and our English Bibles correctly use the word “head”. At other times the Hebrew word ‘rosh’ refers to a leader or authority. This occurs 180 times in all, or about 30% of the time. And again, our Bibles normally use the word “head” in those cases since our English word, like the Hebrew word, carries both meanings. It is, in fact, the perfect translation of ‘rosh’ in this case.

But that’s Hebrew and English. The question at hand is Greek, and what Paul meant by the Greek word for head, kephalé. How did our 70 ancient Greek and Hebrew scholars translate ‘rosh’ into Greek when they had the chance? Did they believe ‘kephale’ was the perfect translation of ‘rosh’ when it referred to authority? No, they did not.

When we examine the Septuagint, we find that whenever rosh referred to a literal head, such as in Genesis 3:15, “You shall bruise his head,”- they used the standard Greek word for head, kephalé. However, in the 180 times that the Old Testament uses the word “rosh” to mean leader or ruler or boss, they avoided kephalé like the plague!

The Septuagint translators weren’t ones to paraphrase. In fact, some have complained they followed the Hebrew text too literally. Yet when ‘rosh’ meant head as a leader, they almost always switched to a different word, one that did mean leader, but did not carry the meaning of ‘head’- the body part.

Moreover, the handful of times that the Septuagint translators did use kephalé to imply authority are the first times in recorded history that the word was used that way. And in almost every instance it was either a case that they were forced to use it by a tough translation choice, such as a head/ tail metaphor, or it is questionable as to whether authority was really implied at all.

Let’s think about that.

If kephalé carries the meaning “leader” in addition to the literal meaning “head”, then it is the perfect translation of ‘rosh’ in every sense it is used. And it would mean the Septuagint translators intentionally avoided using the perfect translation in favor of another word that only carried half the meaning! And not just once or twice or a dozen times, but one hundred and seventy-one times.
This is a powerful indication that these 70 ancient linguists did not feel comfortable with using kephalé to express that meaning. If kephalé could mean authority to these guys, they wouldn’t have switched to another word that didn’t also mean “head”. It makes no sense that they would have done that.



There you go again, making your insinuations that I support LGBT. As I pointed out, we agree on that issue, but you continually want to throw that out as a point against me. Whatever.

The only reason we can't agree on the meaning of patriarchy because I can't nail you down. I tried in post #665 to establish a working definition, but you seem to be allergic to anything written by a feminist.

Then I tried in #669, and made several points that you didn't answer. I ended with a question based on your dictionary:

All that is summed up quite nicely in my point #3-

3. A society that promotes male authority and female submission.

What's your problem with that?​

Crickets.

The above... verbal dodge ball and redundant smoke screens.

Again. This is important. You wrote this below.

Ohorseman turned to appealing to patriarchy because of an alleged need, in order to prevent women from making the wrong choices, which he seemed to think men would do a better job at. That's when I pointed out that women have free will just like men do.

Rather than list post #, quote me. I am not asking for a repeat of your explanation, the one that another poster already called out as “classic misrepresentation”. Bearing false witness is not “fine”. You claim I wrote something. Please post the quote of me writing that.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Because we resist without exception every other thing that came as a result of the fall.

What about motherhood?

 

[Gregorikos]

The above... verbal dodge ball and redundant smoke screens.

Again. This is important. You wrote this below.

Rather than list post #, quote me. I am not asking for a repeat of your explanation, the one that another poster already called out as “classic misrepresentation”. Bearing false witness is not “fine”. You claim I wrote something. Please post the quote of me writing that.

View attachment 298212​

This seems like a perfect setup for you to claim offense and then block me like you did Paidiske. With both of our voices out of the way, and Philip_B to fend for himself, you can preach to your choir and claim victory. Is that where this is headed?

My takeaway from you post #570 is just what I said: You expressed the need in post #570 for male intervention in bad decisions women are making in response to Eloy's post # 564.

If that's not what you meant, what DID you mean?

 

[Gregorikos]

What about motherhood?

Motherhood is not a result of the fall. See Genesis 1:28

 

[Eloy Craft]

Motherhood is not a result of the fall. See Genesis 1:28

Genesis 1 doesn't address the fall. To claim events it describes as before or after the fall is misusing the text.

 

[Ohorseman]

This seems like a perfect setup for you to claim offense and then block me like you did Paidiske. With both of our voices out of the way, and Philip_B to fend for himself, you can preach to your choir and claim victory. Is that where this is headed?

My takeaway from you post #570 is just what I said: You expressed the need in post #570 for male intervention in bad decisions women are making in response to Eloy's post # 564.

If that's not what you meant, what DID you mean?

Victim card? Really? I do not plan to block you, as you say.

I did not ask for your "takeaway". I asked for you to quote where I wrote what you claim I wrote.

You can't. Because I did not write that. But you, you claim I wrote something that I did not write. Other members quote your... misinformation, to use a nice word. Then you argue against your very own misinformation. You do this more than once. I could show you others. That is just the most blatant example. It is bearing false witness. Egalitarianism should not literally be a hill to die on for one's soul.

 

[Ohorseman]

Genesis 1 doesn't address the fall. To claim events it describes as before or after the fall is misusing the text.

Let’s look again at the Fall, where some say patriarchy started. To be fair, we should look at all the features of the curse, and not just cherry pick the one about the husband rule. It is recorded in the Bible what God said to us after the Fall. I have checked off, or noted, beside each item which things still apply to the devil, the woman, and the man. It looks like most things are marked “still”, to mean still applies today.

Still
/stil/
adverb

1. up to and including the present or the time mentioned

GENESIS
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:
“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle, -----------still applies
And more than every beast of the field; -----------still
On your belly you shall go, ------------------------still
And you shall eat dust ----------------still
All the days of your life. ---------------still
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman, -----------------still
And between your seed and her Seed; ------------still
He shall bruise your head, ----------------- Messiah happened
And you shall bruise His heel.” --------------- Messiah happended

16 To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; ---------still
In pain you shall bring forth children; --- still, medication only masks the pain
Your desire shall be for your husband, --------still, at least half the marriages
And he shall rule over you.” ---------- WAIT, we are throwing this one out !!!

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice
of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I
commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake; -------------------still applies
In toil you shall eat of it --------------------------- still
All the days of your life. -------- still, but maybe God was kidding
18 Both thorns and thistles it
shall bring forth for you, ---still, even with weed killers they always come back
And you shall eat the herb of the field. ------------------still
19 In the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread ------- still, especially when AC breaks
Till you return to the ground, --- still, and until man dies? Does it really say that?
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.” -----still

So, let’s tally this up:
Satan does not actually stop ANY of what God said to him. The woman and the man do not actually stop what God said. AC is nice when it works here in the first world. Pain medicine alters our mind to where we don’t feel the pain, or masks it I should say. I do wish we had some better weed killers, some that would not cause cancer. Yet the weeds never stop. Ask any gardener. That returning to the dust part does NOT seem to be going away. But now, 2021, like 6 thousand years later, we are finally going to stop husband rule….

HERE IS ANOTHER THING:
The part in v. 16 about the woman’s “ desire for her husband”… are we supposed to resist that too. Isn't that promotion of Lesbianism?

Some translations of v. 16 say “desire to control your husband” or “desire shall be contrary to your husband” . So, does that mean that a good Christian should resist feminism? I’m just trying to understand.

No, wait, I see the solution to this. We just cherry pick our resistance. We resist only the parts that suit us. Wait, that would be too much like having an agenda. Well, let’s do it anyway. LOL.

 

[Eloy Craft]

What’s wrong with you guys. Don’t you see. What Eloy Craft said is real. You claim patriarchy hurts the ladies’ feelings and it keeps them from being things like a priestess… meanwhile patriarchal-free moms are legally ending lives, and sometimes against the will of the father. T

Patriarchy is about authority within families. You have this in mind, properly so in this debate. Our opponents aren't doing this. As you know, abortion is about authority within families. All of it to the mother. That is enshrined in our legal system. That is matriarchy enshrined.

 

[Gregorikos]

Genesis 1 doesn't address the fall. To claim events it describes as before or after the fall is misusing the text.

I know Genesis 1 doesn't address the fall. It occurred before the fall.

Thus, motherhood occurred before the fall. Since it occurred before the fall, it cannot be a result of the fall.

 

[Gregorikos]

I did not ask for your "takeaway". I asked for you to quote where I wrote what you claim I wrote.

You can't. Because I did not write that. But you, you claim I wrote something that I did not write. Other members quote your... misinformation, to use a nice word. Then you argue against your very own misinformation. You do this more than once. I could show you others. That is just the most blatant example. It is bearing false witness. Egalitarianism should not literally be a hill to die on for one's soul.

I wasn't quoting you, I was giving what I thought was the gist of what you were trying to communicate in your post. Again, if that isn't what you were trying to say, what were you trying to say?

 

[Eloy Craft]

I know Genesis 1 doesn't address the fall. It occurred before the fall.

Thus, motherhood occurred before the fall. Since it occurred before the fall, it cannot be a result of the fall.

Genesis 1 was an oral tradition that reveals the beginning. Genesis 2 is an oral tradition that reveals the beginning. Scholars aren't sure which tradition is oldest.
Like the synoptic Gospels arent chronological.

 

[Eloy Craft]

The part in v. 16 about the woman’s “ desire for her husband”… are we supposed to resist that too. Isn't that promotion of Lesbianism?

Interesting. Sounds like desire for her husband is a good thing.

Some translations of v. 16 say “desire to control your husband” or “desire shall be contrary to your husband” . So, does that mean that a good Christian should resist feminism? I’m just trying to understand.

Toxic femininity hates a husband. I think that's the antithesis to desire for a husband and his rule. What a grace. I think God infused in our psyche desire and rule to help keep things in order.

 

[Gregorikos]

Genesis 1 was an oral tradition that reveals the beginning. Genesis 2 is an oral tradition that reveals the beginning. Scholars aren't sure which tradition is oldest.
Like the synoptic Gospels arent chronological.

What a convoluted understanding of the text! But be that as it may, motherhood began in Genesis 1:28, and god pronounced everything VERY good in verse 31, so clearly the fall had not yet occurred.

 

[Philip_B]

Toxic femininity hates a husband. I think that's the antithesis to desire for a husband and his rule. What a grace. I think God infused in our psyche desire and rule to help keep things in order.

Do you even think about some of these statements?

A husband and his rule. You seem to reduce family life to some sort of brute caveman existence or monarchical feudalism.

God infused in our psyche desire and rule to help keep things in order. I presume the 'our' here is to refer to the male psyche, and if you think we have been ruling and keeping things in order, that I put it to you sir, it is a long time since you have read a newspaper.

I am afraid if this stuff makes sense to you, then I must like in an alternative universe.

 

[Gregorikos]

The above... verbal dodge ball and redundant smoke screens.

How easily you dismissed my overwhelming evidence that:

1. "Head" has many metaphorical meanings, even in English.
2. Ancient Greeks were clearly extremely reluctant to use kephalé to mean authority.
3. The nearest contextual use of kephalé by Paul doesn't refer to authority.

But your refusal to deal with it doesn't make the evidence go away.

 

[Eloy Craft]

What a convoluted understanding of the text! But be that as it may, motherhood began in Genesis 1:28, and god pronounced everything VERY good in verse 31, so clearly the fall had not yet occurred.

Well, I didn't post an understanding of the text. You quote a tradition that doesn't include a fall then use it to substantiate a chronology that doesn't exist.